The Two Truths

[jonesboy]

Originally Posted by sky123

' There is non so blind as those who do not want to see '

Yes I know the difference between them and it depends on what school of Buddhism you follow.

If you know the difference then you know that an Arhat is not a Buddha and all those people you listed are not Buddhas.

So why list them?

Also, Theravada Buddhist believe that one can't achieve Buddhahood in this lifetime and the farthest one can achieve is an Arhat.

So like your quote says, open your eyes.

[sky]

Originally Posted by jonesboy

If you know the difference then you know that an Arhat is not a Buddha and all those people you listed are not Buddhas.

So why list them?

Also, Theravada Buddhist believe that one can't achieve Buddhahood in this lifetime and the farthest one can achieve is an Arhat.

So like your quote says, open your eyes.

Eyes WIDE open
I listed them because BUDDHA listed them, ok.

[jonesboy]

Originally Posted by Bohdiyana

Yea I think there is a logic problem in the argument being put forth.

They are arguing one must be a Buddhist to experience this or that. Must not merely pick and choose, must be a full "card carrying" member who has fulfilled all of the official requirements... then they state all of the advanced states they have experienced all while not being a full fledged card carrying Buddhist.

These statements contradict each other. Either one can realize the advanced states of consciousness Buddhism talks about without being a Buddhist or one can't. You can't claim both are true.

The states of mind are universal but not all paths lead to the same depth... Hence the split for instance from Brahmanism to Buddhism.

I am saying that if you don't want to be rude to the millions if not billions of serious Buddhist around the world who do follow a tradition. If you don't go to the temples to learn, don't do the practices and seek knowledge or practices outside of Buddhist traditions you shouldn't call yourself a Buddhist.

Other traditions for instance like Kashmir Shaivism are very deep. Realize a state of oneness with all things. Achieve as is stated in the Shiva Sutras the power of creation, because you are that power. Nothing is not you.

But even that is not a Buddha.

So up to that point both traditions are beautiful to me in the descriptions and the process of realizing such states of being. I see much of what I have and do experience in the various traditions.

But I don't do either of there practices or stay true to either tradition... so it would be wrong of me to call myself a Buddhist or a Shaivas.

So when I speak about Buddhism I speak from a Buddhist perspective, not from my own.. unless I clearly state that is what I am doing.

[jonesboy]

Originally Posted by sky123

Eyes WIDE open
I listed them because BUDDHA listed them, ok.

As Arhats

He did not list them as Buddha's.

[sky]

Awakened
Buddha Sutta *(SN*22:58)

Some schools of Buddhism teach that there is a qualitative difference between the liberation of a Buddha and that of an arahant disciple. This sutta, however, shows that the Buddha saw the distinction in different terms.

*****

Near Sāvatthī… “Monks, the Tathāgata—the worthy one, the rightly self-awakened one, who from disenchantment with form, from dispassion, from cessation, from lack of clinging (for form) is released—is termed ‘rightly self-awakened.’ And a discernment-released monk—who from disenchantment with form, from dispassion, from cessation, from lack of clinging (for form) is released—is termed ‘discernment-released.’

“The Tathāgata—the worthy one, the rightly self-awakened one, who from disenchantment with feeling… perception… fabrication, from dispassion, from cessation, from lack of clinging (for feeling… perception… fabrication) is released—is termed ‘rightly self-awakened.’ And a discernment-released monk—who from disenchantment with feeling… perception… fabrication, from dispassion, from cessation, from lack of clinging (for feeling… perception… fabrication) is released—is termed ‘discernment-released.’

“The Tathāgata—the worthy one, the rightly self-awakened one, who from disenchantment with consciousness, from dispassion, from cessation, from lack of clinging (for consciousness) is released—is termed ‘rightly self-awakened.’ And a discernment-released monk—who from disenchantment with consciousness, from dispassion, from cessation, from lack of clinging (for consciousness) is released—is termed ‘discernment-released.’

“So what difference, what distinction, what distinguishing factor is there between one rightly self-awakened and a monk discernment-released?”

“For us, lord, the teachings have the Blessed One as their root, their guide, & their arbitrator. It would be good if the Blessed One himself would elaborate on the meaning of this statement. Having heard it from the Blessed One, the monks will remember it.”

“In that case, monks, listen & pay close attention. I will speak.”

“As you say, lord,” the monks responded to him.

The Blessed One said, “The Tathāgata—the worthy one, the rightly self-awakened one—is the one who gives rise to the path (previously) unarisen, who engenders the path (previously) unengendered, who points out the path (previously) not pointed out. He knows the path, is expert in the path, is adept at the path. And his disciples now keep following the path and afterward become endowed with the path.

“This is the difference, this the distinction, this the distinguishing between one rightly self-awakened and a monk discernment-released.”

Hope this helps

[sky]

Originally Posted by jonesboy

As Arhats

He did not list them as Buddha's.

Sorry I forgot that you don't read Buddha's Sutras, I remember you telling another that you found them boring, hence you won't understand.
The Buddha listed them and many more ....

[sky]

Originally Posted by jonesboy

The states of mind are universal but not all paths lead to the same depth... Hence the split for instance from Brahmanism to Buddhism.

I am saying that if you don't want to be rude to the millions if not billions of serious Buddhist around the world who do follow a tradition. If you don't go to the temples to learn, don't do the practices and seek knowledge or practices outside of Buddhist traditions you shouldn't call yourself a Buddhist.

Other traditions for instance like Kashmir Shaivism are very deep. Realize a state of oneness with all things. Achieve as is stated in the Shiva Sutras the power of creation, because you are that power. Nothing is not you.

But even that is not a Buddha.

So up to that point both traditions are beautiful to me in the descriptions and the process of realizing such states of being. I see much of what I have and do experience in the various traditions.

But I don't do either of there practices or stay true to either tradition... so it would be wrong of me to call myself a Buddhist or a Shaivas.

So when I speak about Buddhism I speak from a Buddhist perspective, not from my own.. unless I clearly state that is what I am doing.

How can you speak from a Buddhist perspective when you sometimes deny Buddhas Sutras as being correct ?

[Bohdiyana]

Originally Posted by sky123

How can you speak from a Buddhist perspective when you sometimes deny Buddhas Sutras as being correct ?

Yea the Buddhist perspective would be nothing in Buddhism is lacking or inferior or wrong. That the highest can be found and achieved within Buddhism. Nothing outside is needed. There is no other path. All paths exist and are found within Buddhism. Buddhism is everything and everything contains Buddhism. Everyone, every single human being, has the same Buddha Nature within them. What Buddha found is what we all find. There is nothing else to find. That is the Buddhist perspective.

[Bohdiyana]

Yea I see a logic flaw in what you are saying...you seem to be contradicting yourself.

Originally Posted by jonesboy

I see much of what I have and do experience in the various traditions. But I don't do either of their practices or stay true to either tradition...

So you are saying a person can experience and realize the truths of Buddhism without being a Buddhist because you have done so yourself.

Originally Posted by jonesboy

Haha yes, and how does one realize that Buddha nature? By taking refuge in the 3 Jewels of Buddhism :)

So according to what you are saying in your first sentences, how you have experienced things from Buddhism without being a Buddhist or doing Buddhist practices, one can realize Buddha nature without taking refuge in the 3 jewels.

So you state it is possible then state it is impossible. If one must do "official" Buddhist practices like taking refuge in the 3 jewels in order to realize Buddha nature, then you must do "official" Buddhist practices to experience emptiness etc. You state you are not following Buddhism nor doing Buddhist practices and yet you claim you are experiencing things like emptiness or silence etc from these traditions. See the contradiction there? It's kind of like you are saying you can experience the things from Buddhism without Buddhism but nobody else can.

_______________________________________________
FYI there is a difference between there and their.....

[jonesboy]

Originally Posted by sky123

Awakened
Buddha Sutta *(SN*22:58)

Some schools of Buddhism teach that there is a qualitative difference between the liberation of a Buddha and that of an arahant disciple. This sutta, however, shows that the Buddha saw the distinction in different terms.

*****

Near Sāvatthī… “Monks, the Tathāgata—the worthy one, the rightly self-awakened one, who from disenchantment with form, from dispassion, from cessation, from lack of clinging (for form) is released—is termed ‘rightly self-awakened.’ And a discernment-released monk—who from disenchantment with form, from dispassion, from cessation, from lack of clinging (for form) is released—is termed ‘discernment-released.’

“The Tathāgata—the worthy one, the rightly self-awakened one, who from disenchantment with feeling… perception… fabrication, from dispassion, from cessation, from lack of clinging (for feeling… perception… fabrication) is released—is termed ‘rightly self-awakened.’ And a discernment-released monk—who from disenchantment with feeling… perception… fabrication, from dispassion, from cessation, from lack of clinging (for feeling… perception… fabrication) is released—is termed ‘discernment-released.’

“The Tathāgata—the worthy one, the rightly self-awakened one, who from disenchantment with consciousness, from dispassion, from cessation, from lack of clinging (for consciousness) is released—is termed ‘rightly self-awakened.’ And a discernment-released monk—who from disenchantment with consciousness, from dispassion, from cessation, from lack of clinging (for consciousness) is released—is termed ‘discernment-released.’

“So what difference, what distinction, what distinguishing factor is there between one rightly self-awakened and a monk discernment-released?”

“For us, lord, the teachings have the Blessed One as their root, their guide, & their arbitrator. It would be good if the Blessed One himself would elaborate on the meaning of this statement. Having heard it from the Blessed One, the monks will remember it.”

“In that case, monks, listen & pay close attention. I will speak.”

“As you say, lord,” the monks responded to him.

The Blessed One said, “The Tathāgata—the worthy one, the rightly self-awakened one—is the one who gives rise to the path (previously) unarisen, who engenders the path (previously) unengendered, who points out the path (previously) not pointed out. He knows the path, is expert in the path, is adept at the path. And his disciples now keep following the path and afterward become endowed with the path.

“This is the difference, this the distinction, this the distinguishing between one rightly self-awakened and a monk discernment-released.”

Hope this helps

You just proved my point.

There is a difference.